The Charter of the United Nations is based on the principles of the dignity and equality inherent in all human beings. On January 4, 1969, the United Nations “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” entered into force. The charter defines “racial discrimination” as “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”

Racial Discrimination Ruled Unconstitutional
The 1969 UN Charter would seem to be a step forward from the 1951 ruling in “Oliver Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas” where the Court found “no willful, intentional or substantial discrimination” in Topeka’s segregated schools. Appeals followed and it was only in 1954 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, finally, that segregation was unconstitutional. The story of this landmark ruling began when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) launched an attack against the 1896 ruling that “separate but equal” is constitutional. In its systematic assault on this doctrine the NAACP cited many examples of how segregation is detrimental, including the 1940’s “doll test”.

The Effects of Segregation on Black Children
During the 1940’s Kenneth B. Clark and his wife, Mamie P. conducted a series of tests investigating the effects of segregation on black children. The results of the “doll test” were published in a paper for the 1950 White House Mid-Century Conference on Children and Youth. In the doll test, black children between the ages of three and seven were shown baby dolls identical in every way apart from skin color. They are asked to identify the race of each doll and to indicate which doll they preferred. The majority of black children selected the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. This, and other evidence, induced the Clarks to conclude that, “prejudice, discrimination, and segregation” caused black children to develop a sense of inferiority and self-hatred.

Racial Discrimination in the 21st Century
That racial discrimination still exists is not in question. Whether we like it or not, we are prejudiced. This is highlighted by the Implicit Association Tests discussed in a previous column. Sad but true. However, have we at least encouraged a sense of equality and self-love in individuals of a given race? Apparently not. Kiri Davis, a 17-year old high school student repeated the Clark tests recently on a group of 21 young black children in New York. The results? Fifteen of the children preferred the white doll and attributed more positive characteristics to the white doll. It is disturbing to watch the video and see a young black girl indicate that she prefers the white doll, the white doll is nicer, the black doll is bad–and then see her consternation when Kiri asks, “And which doll is most like you”? It seems the seeds of racial discrimination are planted early.

I’m not planning to offer some cute explanation relating to EQ and SQ quotients. Take the EQ SQ tests, by all means, but they won’t tell you anything about racial discrimination. Discrimination on the grounds of skin color is illogical and unfeeling. Skin color tells you nothing about a person’s abilities or beliefs. Nevertheless, the systemizer in me wonders what the results would be with a group of white children.

I’m not sure I would like the answer.

Sources:
• International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1965, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Geneva, Switzerland
• Brown v. Board Exhibition, The Library of Congress, 2004
• Introduction to the Court Opinion on the Plessy v. Ferguson Case. 163 U.S. 537 (1896)
• The Doll Test, Komo-TV, 2006

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Today, I happened upon “Gender Equality Gobbledygook” by Janice Shaw Crouse. She was writing about the Children’s Fund (UNICEF) report, “The State of the World’s Children 2007″. Crouse is a recognised authority on domestic issues, the United Nations, cultural and women’s concerns. As I read the piece I could almost see her rolling her eyes and shaking her head. I was compelled to find the UNICEF report and read it for myself. I mean, the well-being of our children is a serious issue. What could have caused Ms. Crouse to be so derisory?

Women and Children: The Double Dividend of Gender Equality
The first thing that struck me was the subtitle of the report, “Women and Children. The Double Dividend of Gender Equality.” The five chapter titles continued in a similar vein:
* A call for equality
* Equality in the household
* Equality in employment
* Equality in politics and government
* Reaping the double dividend of gender equality

Politics and Prejudice: The Double Whammy of a Secret Agenda
While the stated purpose of the UNICEF report is to highlight the plight of the world’s children, the actual agenda seems to be about reinforcing clichéd feminist beliefs concerning the unequal treatment of men and women in just about every facet of life. The focus is shifted again and again from the welfare of children to issues around gender equality. Maybe there is a connection between gender discrimination and the well-being of our children, but surely it isn’t the only factor?

Fruitless and Futile: The Double Trouble of a Misleading Report
I have not read the entire UNICEF report. I don’t feel inspired to do so. I feel cheated and guilty. I care about the world’s children and unwarranted gender discrimination, but the ambiguity apparent in the purpose of the report has left me unwilling to invest the time required to read it. It has also left me suspicious of future UNICEF reports (despite the fact that the report carries a disclaimer stating, “Commentaries represent the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect UNICEF positions”).

The report reminds me of one of those full-page “advertorials” you see in newspapers. The ones that appear to be balanced and informative articles but are actually designed to promote a particular product or service. The UNICEF report is ostensibly about the state of the world’s children but actually says more about gender equality than children, per se. However, legally, advertorials must state their true agenda.

Shouldn’t the same be true for a report like this?

Sources:
• Gender Equality Gobbledygook, by Janice Shaw Crouse, 2007, Townhall.com
• The State of the World’s Children, 2007, UNICEF

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

An online survey on childcare revealed that more than 90% respondents would employ a female nanny to care for their children. Only 54% respondents would employ a male nanny. Without delving deeply into the demographics of the quiz-takers, the results were nonetheless interesting. In addition, the questions asked were, perhaps, as telling as the responses.

The Intelligence on Male Nannies
The survey explores male versus female attitudes towards childcare and maternity leave. The reasons given for NOT employing a male nanny varied from “they’re too careless,” through “typically, males are emotionless,” to “sex offender sites…majority [of offenders] are men,” and “[men] could not multi-task.” Those that approved of male nannies cited that men are “calm under pressure,” along with “the ability to care is not dependent on gender,” and (loved this one) “the ones who choose to do it are very good at it, otherwise they would choose to do something else.”

The Intelligence on Female Nannies
The responses pertaining to female nannies praised women as patient with children, terrific, having a natural connection, being more maternal, having excellent intuition, etc. Even though there was a small percentage of respondents who stated they would not employ a female nanny, there were NO negative responses about female nannies.

Female Brain Bias in Setting the Survey
As I pondered the results of the survey I noticed a glaring omission in the questions. Clearly, the survey-setter was trying to set unbiased, balanced questions; with any choices relating to men countered by a the same choices relating to women. However, one question asked whether women should be entitled to maternity leave. Four percent of respondents believed that women should not have maternity leave, 28% believed it should be unpaid, and 74% believed it should be paid. Displaying classic stereotypical gender bias, the survey-setter did not even ask if men should be entitled to paternity leave. How would women react if they were ignored in this fashion? I, for one, would scoff and shake my head at the ineptitude and lack of logic.

The Truth is Out
Unfortunately, I must confess to my sins. I am embarrassed and contrite. The revised version of the survey, set by yours truly, now includes a question on paternity leave and is available for completion.

More on this topic when I have analysed the results further (hopefully with a COMPLETELY open mind).

Sources:
• Male versus Female Bias in the Childcare Debate, (Survey) SurveyMonkey.com

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.

Wrap a baby in a pink blanket and adults coo and smile, speaking softly and sweetly to the little “girl.” Wrap the same baby in a blue blanket and adults bounce it up and down, speaking loudly to the little “boy.” At least, that’s how I remember it.

Call it a personality test (the endurance kind…), call it an example of the earliest social education. These scenes from Nova’s 1980 documentary on gender stereotyping “The Pinks and the Blues” have stayed with me, though the program aired twenty-five years ago. PBS archives say, “this program graphically and powerfully illustrates the ways in which adults create gender characteristics in infants according to their sex.”

Are Gender Stereotypes “Made”?
Created? The female brain and the male brain are made, they’re not inborn? Yes, some folks argue, gender stereotying at all levels is not natural, it’s a product of our upbringing. The fancy name for this group is “social constructionists.”

Are Gender Stereotypes “Born”?
On the other side of the fence are psychologists, like Simon Baron-Cohen, who agree that socialization (for example, the cooing and bouncing) is important. However, “what we’ve found is if you go back in time to when children are very small, you still find these sex differences even before experience or socialization has had much chance to have an effect.”

Baron-Cohen cites an oft-cited finding: “Little girls will look longer at a human face, and little boys will look longer at a mechanical mobile suspended above the crib.”

I can imagine the constructionist interpretation: The little girl sees a human face and anticipates happily the sweetness and caress, inviting it by holding the gaze. The little boy sees a human face and averts eyes quickly–anything to avoid the bouncing, jiggling, and yelling that must follow. “Gimme the damn mobile. Ah, what a relief!”

What does this mean to you and me?
Does it really matter whether the many and varied factors that determine our scores on the EQ SQ personality tests are hardwired or socially determined? Yes, says the social constructionist. You’ve been shaped to be the “you” that you are. So, you can change your rock bottom EQ score and forge ahead with that career in social work if you really want to. And, if you’re a boy, you can learn to love pink.

On the other hand, if that low EQ and high SQ is hardwired, it’s probably telling you that a technical education would be an easier option for you.

And that you really do prefer the mechanical mobile to the human face.

Sources:
• The Pinks and the Blues, Nova (1980)
• Interview: Simon Baron-Cohen discusses tracking causes of autism back to the womb, by Alex Chadwick. Day to Day (NPR) Aug 15, 2005.

About the author
Tamise Van Pelt, Ph.D., is a systematizing female who was stripped of her pink blanket by a marauding band of social constructionists when she insisted that her low EQ score was genetic.

Would you be surprised to know that it is in countries where women don’t go to work that birth rates are lowest? You might think it should be the other way around: that in countries where women don’t work the birth rate would be highest. Apparently, this is not the case. Children are expensive and it could be that women work simply so they can afford to have children.

Do Women Work Because They Can?
Time studies reported in the Economist indicate that women have more leisure time now than they did forty years ago (and twenty, and ten). Although moms spend just as much time on childcare as they ever did; refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, microwave ovens, and vacuum cleaners mean they spend less time on housework. Could it be that women work just because they can?

Do Women Work for the Money?
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data reveals that women, on average, are paid less than men. This can be explained partly by maternity leave absences (a prolonged absence from the workplace for any reason can result in lower pay), but that’s not the whole story. The UK (a developed country comparable to the U.S.) Office for National Statistics examines salaries for different age groups. It can be seen that in the under-30’s there is very little wage discrimination, whereas in the over-50’s discrimination is rife. Not so much a thing of the past, then, as a thing of the present for people born further in the past…So young women, at least, work for the money, maybe?

Do Women Work for the Global Economy?
Another observation made by the Economist is that, “…over the past decade or so, the increased employment of women in developed economies has contributed much more to global growth than China has.” Translated, this means that women previously destined to be “only” housewives have created more worldwide wealth than one billion Chinese.

Why do women work? Who cares?! Let’s just be glad that they do.

Sources:
• A Guide to Womenomics, April 12, 2006, Economist
• Table 6: Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings (ASHE), 2005, Office for National Satistics

About the author
Katrina Boydon is a systemizing female with empathizing traits. She is as likely to be found crying over a sad film as balancing her bank account to the last cent.